Camping Companies Incorporated v. Cagley et al

Filing 26

ORDER re: 1 Notice of Removal - IT IS ORDERED that by March 6, 2015, the removing Defendants shall file a supplement to the notice of removal properly alleging federal subject matter jurisdiction, or this case will be remanded for lack of feder al subject matter jurisdiction. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants are cautioned that they will be given one opportunity to supplement to cure the defects in the jurisdictional assertions. The Court will not issue additional orders to assist Defe ndants in pleading jurisdiction. Therefore, if the supplement to the notice of removal fails to plead federal subject matter jurisdiction, this case will be remanded without the Court sua sponte granting Defendants any further opportunities to supplement. (See document for further details). Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 2/20/15. (LAD)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
The Perfect Health Insurance Company; et)
)
al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
The Camping Companies, Inc.,

No. CV 14-2624-PHX-JAT
ORDER

16

“Inquiring whether the court has jurisdiction is a federal judge’s first duty in every

17

case.” Belleville Catering Co. v. Champaign Market Place, L.L.C., 350 F.3d 691, 693 (7th

18

Cir. 2003). In this case, the notice of removal fails to sufficiently plead jurisdiction. See 28

19

U.S.C. § 1332; Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 80, 92-93 (2010) (discussing the

20

citizenship of a corporation); Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage, 437 F.3d 894, 899

21

(9th Cir. 2006) (discussing the citizenship of a limited liability company).

22

More specifically, the Court finds that for alleging the citizenship of a corporation,

23

alleging the principal place of business as “not Arizona” is inadequate to allow this Court to

24

independently assess jurisdiction. Second, for alleging the citizenship of a limited liability

25

company (“LLC”), each member of the LLC must be identified and that person or entity’s

26

citizenship must be properly alleged.

27
28

Accordingly,

1

IT IS ORDERED that by March 6, 2015, the removing Defendants shall file a

2

supplement to the notice of removal properly alleging federal subject matter jurisdiction, or

3

this case will be remanded for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction.

4

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants are cautioned that they will be given

5

one opportunity to supplement to cure the defects in the jurisdictional assertions. The Court

6

will not issue additional orders to assist Defendants in pleading jurisdiction.1 Therefore, if

7

the supplement to the notice of removal fails to plead federal subject matter jurisdiction, this

8

case will be remanded without the Court sua sponte granting Defendants any further

9

opportunities to supplement.

10

DATED this 20th day of February, 2015.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Judges should not give parties advice because advice, “would undermine district
judges’ role as impartial decision makers.” See Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004).
-2-